[statecom-discuss] Developing a Strategic Plan

[John Andrews]

From: John Andrews

(If my email settings are now correct, then this will be my first 
successful posting to the discussion list!)


I’m writing this as one of the co-authors of the proposal to set up a 
Strategic Plan Working Group (SPWG).  The SPWG is supposed to be 
self-governing, and the members haven’t yet been appointed, so they 
can’t speak for themselves.  But I can speak to the intentions behind 
the proposal that passed State Committee.

In recent weeks the Statecomm discussion list has had many postings 
that, directly or indirectly,  deal with *strategy*.  I’ve been taking 
notes and I’m going to give those notes to the Strategic Plan Working 
Group (SPWG) as something for them to consider (along with ideas coming 
from many other sources).

One of the reasons why we proposed the SPWG was that email discussions, 
while good for getting some ideas on the table,  seldom converge to a 
conclusion, and do not result in a complete, balanced, and defendable 
plan.  I think our experience supports this observation.  The SPWG is 
supposed to be a group of people working together over a period of time 
to think critically about all possible options,  evaluate the 
possibilities, and come up with a broad plan that can be endorsed and 
implemented.  There can (and should) be free-wheeling discussion about 
the plan before it is adopted.  But actually writing the plan requires a 
focused and sustained effort, with a series of face-to-face meetings.

It was not our intention that all GRP work would stop until the 
Strategic Plan is written and approved.  The Strategic Plan is not 
supposed to place any official limitations on what GRP members decide to 
work on.  But it will, hopefully, present a very attractive menu of 
possibilities that are part of an exciting plan, and which will 
naturally activate both old and new GRP supporters.  Initiatives that 
are part of the Strategic Plan should receive priority attention from 
working committees, state committees, and local chapters.  If some local 
decides they want to do something entirely different, that’s their 
right.  But hopefully the more common response will be “This is great! 
Now we have something we can really run with!”.

In planning, the SPWG has to take into account anything that is already 
going on at the start of the planning period.  Hopefully, it will find 
that such initiatives are a valuable foundation for the overall efforts 
between now and 2009.  And hopefully if the Strategic Plan calls for 
changes to ongoing initiatives,  everyone will see the advantage of 
making the changes.

My personal opinions (for consideration by the SPWG, along with many 
others):

• It is vitally important that the Strategic Plan produce a growth in 
the strength of the Green-Rainbow Party.  No matter how admirable our 
values, if we do not grow we will not accomplish what we want to accomplish.

• The Strategic Plan needs to include some specific statements about 
what must be done and what the measures of success will be.  It should 
be possible to present data that shows we are or that we are not making 
progress toward our objectives.

• We need to create synergism between different initiatives whenever we 
can.  Local work should support statewide work and vice versa.  Movement 
building should be synergistic with electoral work, etc.   This not only 
multiplies our impact, it helps to unify the party.  Different 
initiatives should not be seen as competitors, but as mutually 
reinforcing components of the overall GRP strategy.

And my plea to the State Committee discussion list:

•  Give strategic planning a chance.  Don’t start thinking about how bad 
the plan could be before the first word of it is written.  Let’s assume 
- until proven otherwise - that when the work is complete, we are going 
to have a fantastic plan that reflects all our collective wisdom and is 
worthy of our full support.  With your help, we can make it turn out 
that way.